|
Post by homerdante on Jun 28, 2017 17:14:14 GMT -5
This will go to 50 pages if you don't just let him get the last word. Maybe move it.. Takes up nearly 2 full pages and still shows no signs of abating. Second this motion--if it were NOT mods and editors involved in this discussion, it likely would have been split out into a "Theories about Drafting, fairness, etc." thread days ago. I know I for one love everything this site offers, particularly draft coverage and post draft coverage. I assume like many others, I click on the Post Draft Thread when I see there are new posts, hoping for some news about new signings, but lately, it's been this long debate mostly. Please move that to another thread, powers that be, thank you!
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 29, 2017 5:06:14 GMT -5
Wow I'm really sorry my comment turned into a thread. Lol my bad folks. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 29, 2017 5:21:45 GMT -5
Why is it a dumb rule? If you don't sign a pick, why should you still get the bonus money associated with that slot? Also, the reason you sign Netzer is that you thought he was good enough to draft in the third round. You only get so many draft picks. You need to sign the good ones. Maybe it's already been discussed here, but I just don't think the team should get penalized for a decision they have only so much control over. You do run into situations like in the old system where teams are picking less talented kids in rounds 1-10 and not signing them and then turning around in later rounds and paying more talented kids with huge college commitments to get to sign with a team. I can see both sides to the argument. No system is perfect. At least the international kids aren't making 30 million dollars more than the American kids because of where they were born.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,953
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jun 29, 2017 8:15:46 GMT -5
Why is it a dumb rule? If you don't sign a pick, why should you still get the bonus money associated with that slot? Also, the reason you sign Netzer is that you thought he was good enough to draft in the third round. You only get so many draft picks. You need to sign the good ones. Maybe it's already been discussed here, but I just don't think the team should get penalized for a decision they have only so much control over. You do run into situations like in the old system where teams are picking less talented kids in rounds 1-10 and not signing them and then turning around in later rounds and paying more talented kids with huge college commitments to get to sign with a team. I can see both sides to the argument. No system is perfect. At least the international kids aren't making 30 million dollars more than the American kids because of where they were born. I think you'd run the risk of teams intentionally not signing players in order to be able to sign high upside kids who fall due to signability concerns.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jun 29, 2017 8:29:31 GMT -5
Well its trying to do two things, hence the unhappiness. If you are trying to cap total spending, but don't care about allocation, you come up with a cap, like on the J2. One kid can get 90%, and all others peanuts.
Under that system, for the draft, you can not punish teams for not signing players. Keep the same cap.
But for the draft they also want to keep individual salaries down. So they take away from the cap if you don't sign a player. It creates the stupid result that teams draft $10K players early just to save space. Just eliminate the punishment so teams don't have to go through the charade of picking Wren's kid early. Give them a fixed cap, just like J2, and let them decide whether to waste picks and allocate most to a single player, or spread it around.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 29, 2017 8:29:35 GMT -5
Why is it a dumb rule? If you don't sign a pick, why should you still get the bonus money associated with that slot? Also, the reason you sign Netzer is that you thought he was good enough to draft in the third round. You only get so many draft picks. You need to sign the good ones. Maybe it's already been discussed here, but I just don't think the team should get penalized for a decision they have only so much control over.
You do run into situations like in the old system where teams are picking less talented kids in rounds 1-10 and not signing them and then turning around in later rounds and paying more talented kids with huge college commitments to get to sign with a team. I can see both sides to the argument. No system is perfect. At least the international kids aren't making 30 million dollars more than the American kids because of where they were born. No need to fix a problem that doesn't exist, besides a few outliers everyone in the first 10 rounds signs. Changing this rule would give more leeway for teams to undercut draftees.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 29, 2017 8:54:35 GMT -5
I think the dislike for the current system comes from some people's OCD, where they believe that the best players should be drafted in order of ability.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 29, 2017 9:06:17 GMT -5
Maybe it's already been discussed here, but I just don't think the team should get penalized for a decision they have only so much control over.
You do run into situations like in the old system where teams are picking less talented kids in rounds 1-10 and not signing them and then turning around in later rounds and paying more talented kids with huge college commitments to get to sign with a team. I can see both sides to the argument. No system is perfect. At least the international kids aren't making 30 million dollars more than the American kids because of where they were born. No need to fix a problem that doesn't exist, besides a few outliers everyone in the first 10 rounds signs. Changing this rule would give more leeway for teams to undercut draftees. This system actually did cut down the number of players drafted early who didn't sign significantly. In 2011, for example, here are the players who didn't sign, by round: 1 - 1 1.5 - 1 2 - 1 3 - 3 4 - 1 5 - 3 6 - 3 7 - 2 8 - 5 9 - 3 10 - 5 Now, the reason for this, actually, is probably that teams are drafting tough signs later so as to not chance losing money from their caps. So it's really more of a redistribution of where the guys who aren't going to sign get popped. Last year, for example, Nick Quintana probably gets drafted a lot earlier under the old rules than the 11th, whether or not he's going to sign.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 29, 2017 9:07:26 GMT -5
I think the dislike for the current system comes from some people's OCD, where they believe that the best players should be drafted in order of ability. But order of ability is subjective, esp. after the top 100 or so players
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Jun 29, 2017 17:47:52 GMT -5
Since I'm the one who started this, I feel compelled to chime in.
Making a player declare at a certain round/slot to 'promise' to go pro if offered has the flaw that a player may go for $500K if the Rockies, but $350K enough if Red Sox. Declaring etc basically solves a problem that may not exist if teams know the number ahead of time, which it seems like they do.
When players try to say one number but would sign for less is a potential issue. How many teams would have taken the next Jon "Bench" Denney earlier if they knew he'd sign for what he did.
MLB is just so unique in the prospect system. And given how much stock changes, an NHL type system where teams control rights in college just wouldn't work either.
Maybe give players actual entry salary that lets lower drafted players not live in poverty, increasing by level, control rights through college, let them decide to go pro or to college, and ditch signing bonuses all together. Let players earn their money (shocking!). As a bonus you could make MLB teams pay for their college. (I know this wouldn't work with NCAA, but may be the most fair).
|
|